the audience applauded

Absolutely Brilliant!

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This film opens with a harrowing recreation of the Tsunami that devastated Indonesia in 2004. Then for the next hour and forty-five minutes it just circles the drain. What bothered me most though was the bastardization of Rachmaninov's 2nd Piano Concerto (second movement) used as a motif for the boy's story. The intro is a note for note copy/plagerism of this famous composition; then an altered Rachmaninov melody wanders around aimlessly until the boy's scene is over, which ultimately ends up nowhere; much like the rest of this film. On second thought, good match Clint!

This movies' topic was not properly detailed within the movies first 2 hours, if at all. This movie left me wanting....... a resolution. Eastwood is not Camus. What was this movie about? the topic has its limited appeal. In the movie they even mentioned that, was that a little joke. There seems to be a cult like following in this topic. Clint Eastwood, has done so many great projects. Matt Damon is great actor What, and why would they make this movie.

We all deal with death, with our loved ones with friends and finally we face it for ourselves. On the face of it, many people would say it is final. However, there are those of us who believe and wonder what it is really like. If only we could have a peek at what is waiting. This book deals with three people who are dealing with death. The man has the ability to see beyond the wall and bring back stories from the dead. The woman, a talented, no nonsense French investigative reporter who is almost drowned in the Indonesian Tsunami but is rescued from drowning by two rescue workers combing the beach on that dreadful day looking for those who might still have life in them. The third person is a young (11 or 12) boy who loses his identical twin in a violent accident. The child having shared every moment, even the womb, with his brother wants to speak to him one more time and find out how and why he is still alive when his brother is dead. He hears about Matt Damon's character and finally breaks through the seer's resistance and gets some answers to help him go forward with his life. The writer meets Damon and feels an immediate bond with someone who understands her experiences "something" which can't be explained. I would recommend this film. The acting is wonderful and the directing is great. I felt each person who worked on this film had a stake in presenting the facts of these "life after death" situations..

I had avoided this movie ever since I had come across it, probably for a year or so, going merely by the review aggregates of the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and IMDb, who had also lambasted this movie. A user had pointed out (going by the name of 'viewerindepth' from Egypt): "I can't believe I was gonna miss it because of bad reviews!" His statement was spot-on. Usually, a couple of movies that did not fare well with RT and Metacritic are relinquished on IMDb. ("Payback" for instance.) But not this. I desperately wonder why.I'm not gonna reveal ANYTHING whatsoever about this movie; but I will tell you this:I have been on an Eastwood movie watching frenzy for the past couple of weeks and I chose this movie as a last resort because I'd already had the DVD and could not get my hands on his "Blood Work" just yet. I have to admit, I was hooked from the first frame. The movie has a very unique screenplay that has to be seen to be understood. It has an ensemble cast, and although the movie does not delve into the complexities of the subject matter much, nevertheless, I'm sure 90% of the audience would understand what it tries to convey after watching it. I came across a couple of reviews which underlined Eastwood's pronto direction, and Damon's performance, but undermined the screenplay and pointed out that the movie just does not come to the point. I can understand why those set of people do not like it, or get it; the point of the movie is not of the in-your-face sorts, but is still magical if you're in for a Shakespearean treatment."Why Shakespearean?" you may ask. Because you'll understand and be able to endure what the movie wishes to put forth upon you only if you allow yourself to think outside the box, and make all the correct assumptions. Don't get me wrong; 'assumptions' was used in a totally metaphorical sense. That said, you will love this movie if you just let it play without asking too many questions, and immerse yourself into what it is trying to convey. You must definitely give it a watch; and if you do not get it, give it a watch again, because the movie is exceptional and has an 80-year-old Eastwood showing his badassery and command over directing, yet again.